Chinese company to sue Google over name

BEIJING Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:53pm BST

A Chinese Internet user browses for information on the popular search engine Google in Beijing January 25, 2006. A Chinese company is suing Google Inc.'s China subsidiary for copying its name, saying the U.S. search engine's registered Chinese name is too similar to its own and has harmed its operations. REUTERS/Stringer

A Chinese Internet user browses for information on the popular search engine Google in Beijing January 25, 2006. A Chinese company is suing Google Inc.'s China subsidiary for copying its name, saying the U.S. search engine's registered Chinese name is too similar to its own and has harmed its operations.

Credit: Reuters/Stringer

Quotes

   

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese company is suing Google Inc.'s China subsidiary for copying its name, saying the U.S. search engine's registered Chinese name is too similar to its own and has harmed its operations.

A spokesman for Beijing Guge Science and Technology Ltd. Co. said Google's commercial name had led to the company being constantly disturbed by people calling up its office trying to contact the search engine.

"We just want Google to change their commercial name," Tian Yunshan, a company official, told Reuters on Friday. "We have already passed our demands on to Google ... We will see what happens in court."

The search engine's Chinese name -- a transliteration of the English word "Google" -- was also used in Beijing Guge's commercially registered name, Tian said.

People searching for Google through a local telephone directory assistance service were invariably directed to Beijing Guge, as the search engine was not listed, Tian explained.

The case had been accepted by a court in Beijing's Haidian district, the Beijing News reported. It was not immediately clear if the case could have any chance of success.

Tian declined to comment on Beijing Guge's operations or its products or services, saying it was "not convenient" to disclose such details.

A Google spokesman contacted by telephone declined to confirm the case and said she was unable to provide immediate comment.

Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.